Ruminations on Double Standards

“When hypocrisy is a character trait, it also affects one’s thinking, because it consists in the negation of all the aspects of reality that one finds disagreeable, irrational or repugnant.” – Octavio Paz

There is parallel advantage and disadvantage to living as male or female, for men are by and large deemed more credible, whilst the womanly form is more coveted. As such, if you are a man the world is more likely to respect you than it is to desire or care for you; whereas if you’re a woman, the world is more partial to be desiring and caring of you, than it is respecting. On some level, be it conscious or not, it would seem our fair species recognises women as dependants and men as their guardians, treating each accordingly.

Now on the surface this sounds like men get a better deal, and within the infinite remit of ideological feminism and the intrinsicality of feminine self-pity, this is certainly what much of womankind believes as she takes a perverse sense of pride in being the prima facie victim. Yet in reality, man’s position comes with a burden, loneliness and difficulty of life that is as equal parts alien as it is undesirable to the feminine.

2.) Of Protestation & Petitioning:

Womanly complaint makes it a common point of contention that there are matters in which by injustice of her womanliness she suffers gross disadvantage, and it is this line of thinking which serves as the foundation for feminist thought.

Let it be clear, the root and core of feminism, that is the psychological seed from which it is sprung, is the notion that one is inferior by merit of their sex, and that this inferiority is not the product of innate deficit, but of a systematic oppression that must be corrected for politically, economically et cetera. For whether a woman identifies as a feminist or not, for as long as she perceives herself as unprivileged by comparison to man, she will for all intent and purpose behave in much the way a self-identifying feminist would. This is to state that although she may decline to call herself a feminist, all too aware the connotations of such a word bode poorly for her reputation, she is ailed by the same penis envying inferiority complex that the most rabid and outspoken of feminist ideologues are.

And yet as men, we consider complaining, irrespective of its justification or substantiation, to be hallmarks of the feminine character. For even if a man has good cause to complain, he is hard pressed to do so, for the act of complaint fills him with a kind of unproductive self-loathing that appears not to plague the female. As such when one is to complain without good cause, be it that man is remiss to complain even with good cause, he is filled with nothing but disgust for the caricatural pretentions of insolence attempting to pass itself off as justice seeking.

A man acts upon, he is not acted upon, therefore if he wants, he does, he does not wait, he proceeds. Should he deign to complain, there is little chance he will be helped, and even if he is, there is yet littler chance he can be helped whilst retaining his dignity. You see whilst women are ailed by eternal dissatisfaction and a need to communicate this dissatisfaction in the petition that man will remedy her contemporary concern, man is ailed by extreme pride. As such, even when a man is truly worthy of help, he is as likely to request it as he is to receive it, and by that I mean, in much the way society is unconcerned with caring for man, man himself does not wish to be taken care of.

A man’s primary emotional concern is his pride, respect but the corollary on which it rides. If a man cannot respect himself, he cannot expect others to, and therefore a man only requests help when he has no other option, be it that seeking help is the last thing he would look to do and not the first. Rather than complain about the unfair, he will seek to rectify it through nothing but sheer volition of whatever means he has available to him. Man tries to help himself, and only after he has been massively unsuccessful in the endeavour will he attempt to seek assistance. For women the principle is reversed, she is quick to seek help, but slow to help herself should she even attempt to do so at all. Naturally, exceptions abound, but as a general statement of observation such a maxim should hold true.

It is not man’s goal to bask in the catharsis of emotional expungement and to petition others to do the bidding his emotions see fit, but rather to understand what is unoptimised and alter it so that it may improve. It is for this reason “nagging” has a strongly feminine connotation, be it that it is women who find all manner of things to gripe over as her insecurities are made fully manifest, for whilst a man changes the world via his hands, women change it by petitioning men.

Men do and take pride in doing, when they’re not doing, they’re ashamed of their unproductivity. A woman’s doings compose of influencing others to act on her behalf, be it that it may, she feels no shame in complaining, and in actual fact feels she is only exercising her natural rights in doing so. Alas, irrespective of woman’s social position, rich or poor, conservative or liberal, educated or uneducated, it is her nature to be dissatisfied with her station, and where she has little or zero problem, she will manufacture and amplify purely so she may enjoy the catharsis of complaining and all its attendant attention.

3.) To Act Or Be Acted Upon:

Inherent too is the magnificent difference in the standard of responsibility each gender holds itself too. Almost as if by some cerebral echo of sex, a woman believes the world is acting upon her, rather than she on it. Therefore when unsatisfied, she infers her condition is the fault of something external to her, and be it that it is man who acts upon her sexually, it is man she holds responsible for her dissatisfaction.

This brings us to a double standard that men dare not complain of and women care not to acknowledge, when a woman treats a man poorly, it is asked what he did to make her behave so unsightly, yet should a man treat a woman poorly, it is hastily concluded he is a monster without further investigation. Women are given the benefit of the doubt even when they have done wrong, with justifications being sought to explain away their wrongdoing – no such instinctual courtesy is extended to men.

This is a social privilege women benefit from most emphatically, to the extent that even in courts of law their punishments are less punitive, should they even be punished at all. He is acting upon and she is acted upon – this line of thought continues to reassert and perpetuate itself all around us irrespective of the material facts.

Womankind sees the double standards she does not benefit from, but is blind to those which she does, incorrectly believing in all earnest that she is most oppressed when she is in actual fact freer than her counterpart. She wishes to reform the social standards from which she does not benefit, be it that she may increase her liberty by limiting her social consequences, but she is without either concern or impetus for the reformation of double standards from which she derives preexisting benefit. This is why women lament how unfair it is their reputations suffer from promiscuity whilst man’s benefits, but are oblivious to the fact they enjoy a level of compassion and assumed innocence that is all but alien to men.

4.) Respect Vs. Desire:

When a woman asks to be evaluated on the basis of her merit in the way a man is, she knows not what she asks for. She seeks greater respect and thus the recognition inherent to said respect, but is blissfully unaware of the drawbacks that come with this. Be it that were she to be respected in the way exclusive to man, she would no longer be cared for in the way exclusive to women.

Women are objects of desire, retaining enough infantile aesthetic in adulthood to elicit the compassion and care the species feels for children. Whereas men are objects of success, that is, a man is to be evaluated on the sum of his utility and achievement. There is no cushion, nor safety net for a man who falls too far into the abyss, yet were he a woman, his decline would be cushioned and prevented by social and governmental support alike. Nobody fundamentally cares for man on the basis that he exists, this privilege is but the preserve of women and children. Rather, his position in the world is predicated on what he can produce and solve, and it is by living in accordance with this nature and having the fruits to show for it a man comes into his own.

Simply put, women covet the respect exclusive to men, but do not understand that the respect men receive is a substitute for the care they do not. That is, society does not fundamentally care for those it respects, in much the way it does not look to guidance from those under its care. When you look up to someone, you respect what they can do and what they have done, but you don’t care for their weaknesses nor their fundamental person, for if you did, you would pity rather than respect. And one may either benefit from the care of pity or the admiration of respect, but not both, for each form of love is mutually exclusive, the presence of one precluding the materialisation of the other.

An aspect of the negative feminine resents not being boss, and yet it is only because of her secondary role that she benefits from a compassion of care and empathy that men cease to receive after the infancy of boyhood. Indeed, people may respect men more than they respect women, but it comes at the cost of being cared about merely for existing, and having the freedom to be vulnerable. Alas, focusing on what she doesn’t benefit from whilst neglecting what she does, many a woman abhors being the second sex, but she does so only because she doesn’t realise she’d hate being the primary even more.

5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:

People keep inquiring about one-on-one consulting, and thus I have put up a page to address this,see here.

45 comments

In fact it is now common for women to expect to be both respected and also cherished (which is what you are referring to above wrt being looked after by virtue of your existence regardless of achievements). This desire/expectation of both is narcissism.

It’s more than wanting both. Today when they say on tv about respecting women, they are conflating the inherent desire/care they’ve been enjoying with an inherent respect. That may be your point, I wasn’t sure because you can have both as two separate things. But they also believe that the respect they think the men get is inherent. And about the only respect a man inherently gets is from an imposing physical presence. And that kind of respect is the most basic kind of not messing with somebody that is minding their own business. That kind of respect is what I say everybody deserves. Realistically you don’t get all the time, but should.
It’s narcissism and also, whether unconscious or not, a ploy to use male desire to do anything from being above criticism, maximize sexual agency, to remove as much consequence from any mistakes and poor choices they make.

My question is – If these are your problems with women, so women decided to accept BOTH the responsibility of leadership and also rejected the care of society (because lets face it, many do already), would you guys stop complaining like you are here? I don’t know how any of you say the statements you make and feel confused as to why women would want to change their station. All the “leadership is hard” talk but how many of you are trying to relinquish that place?

Implicit in this posting is the obvious pain and loss of purpose women who try to embrace the masculine role experience. My observation has been that most women do eventually pinpoint this as running problematically counter to their nature, but it is usually long after their sexual market value has taken a significant hit, and irreversible damage has been inflicted.

Indeed once more…this is why I posit that feminism is the epitomeot of misogyny. It not only degrades women, but I dare say (as somewhat of a religious man) that it mocks the Creator womankind.

With respect the brother IM, I submit, as reference, two verses from he Hebrew Scriptures.

Isaiah 45:9

“Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker– An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands ‘?

This is what feminists and other nutjobs do when they say that gender is a social construct. They are quarreling with their Maker.

..and…

Romans 9:20

“On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?”

This argument about equality on the biological level is merely women bitching at the Creator.

I often wonder how much of female bossiness can be attributed to unused maternal instincts. Much as we assume women are faultless in our downfalls, we assume maternal instinct is all wholesome, pleasing, generous. But being nice doesn’t make strong healthy children. A good mother knows how to scare her children away from danger, let them hurt themselves to learn lessons, encourage them to learn and act in conformity with what the tribe expects of them. She nurtures her children, but also forms them into the sort of adult who will provide her with healthy grandchildren.

When women have children late, adopt pets as surrogate children (when pets are essentially babies or toddlers for life, and thus not a target for bossiness], and/or find themselves in charge of men, they need to find an outlet for their maternal urges. They may treat an object or an animal as a baby, but men are not babies. Yet they still feel the need to “mother” the men around them. The more mature and responsible you are, the more the “mother” will treat you like a disobedient teenager. The less you resemble the people portrayed in the media, the more the “mother” will push you in line. The less you resemble the sort of person she desires, the more the “mother” will poke and prod and pester until you start to grow a spine. Which, hand in hand with paternal guidance and stoicism, all works very well for teenagers. But on its own, in a society which raises men to be children and women to deny themselves real children, is dangerous.

I think female bossiness is a mixture of female tendency for manipulation, the female view of males as utility, and tendency for females to avoid the burden of being in the position of being the one most responsible. Really just a mixture of all the things talked about that are Red Pill.
Trying not to be all over the place as I’m typing this, but part of the reason that women want men to be in charge is women don’t like being held accountable for bad choices. Bossiness in women is almost always a woman never really taking the leader position as title and the risk of who’s the one you blame when things go wrong. But only as the one who really calls the shots behind the scenes. So if things go right, it’s because she’s the one really calling the shots. If things go wrong, it’s either nobody’s listening to her or the man needs to be more of a man and lead. And even then, his not stepping up is because he’s not listening to her. And if he does step up, it’s because he finally listened to her. And then you’re back to it’s really her who’s calling the shots.
If you think about it, women who are bossy hardly ever start out that way early in any relationship they have with anybody. At least not coupled with a man in a relationship. It comes after some stage of either commitment or some stage of comfort such as moving in together.
It’s like a woman who is always telling her man how to drive, what lane he needs to be in, how he’s doing everything wrong, but she’s never the one who drives.
Hope that all made sense.

Talking about it from an evolutionary perspective, it’s safe to say that
fitness would increase in a population where the best men impregnate the most
women. Conversely, the best women would better find a good mate to raise their
kids than sleep around. The goals of the sexes may be antithetical, but the
goal of evolution is the same. Therefore, there is no double standard or
hypocricy involved here at all, objectively speaking.

Hello, my name is Siddartha and I recently discovered your website through the website of Christian McQueen. I have devoured numerous articles, particularly those that focus on Machiavellian principles, and have not only derived enjoyment, but have strengthened and supplemented my knowledge of the topics you discuss. Your writing style, however, has particularly caught my eye. My question to you is one of general curiosity. There is no denying your intelligence, but why do you utilize a combination of extensive vocabulary and complex sentences? Your writing style is filled with a grandiose that makes it seem as though you are addressing a target audience, believing that those who cannot comprehend your works are not ready to internalize the concepts you discuss. This, at least, is my perception and understanding of why you write the way you do.

Your articles read like art to me. Some may call it grandiose but I read them like well sculpted, polished pieces. So thorough the ideas communicated in such few well formulated paragraphs. Keep doing what you do, IM. One of my favorite blogs.

Art is what I aspire to. I could surely write more simply, but if I did, I would not be pushing my ability to the brink and producing the best work possible. When I write something, I pour all of myself into it. It comes at the expense of speed, but I’d rather produce less at high quality than produce more at average quality. Thank you for the message of support, I love reading these kind of messages, they do a man a lot of good.

How would you suggest debating/countering a woman who is against this “double standard”

I wouldn’t debate her. Debating women is a foolish exercise, that only results in the frustration and consequent anger of a man whom has done his veritable best to convey why something is incorrect, only to be thwarted in vitality by passionate ignorance.

You may say “but IM, this doesn’t really answer my question, it doesn’t tell me how to win” – and to that I say this: the only way to win is not to play. Who cares what she thinks? It is a God’s honest waste of our time to apply our reason and essence to the futility of trying to make a woman see sense. To do so is to believe there is hope for women, that they can be redeemed of their irrationalism and made fairer and more respectable via further exposure to reason – a thing both wrong and foolish.

Women are solipsistic, their ability to empathise with the difficulties of manhood are scant if even that. As I quite rightfully allude in the essay, she takes a perverse sense of moral superiority from being “the biggest victim” and therefore will not give that position up for anything, not for reason, not for fact, not for empirical measurement – nothing – because to do so would be to give up the very moral high ground on which she prides herself.

If you were to even attempt to partake in such a futile activity, and God knows not why you would, I’d suggest this tac. Explain the difficulties endured by the average man in all their emotional richness, the loneliness, the lack of recognition, the mockery of his underachievement, the absence of care for his well-being, the sense of overwhelming need to be better but never quite being enough – and say “this is you, this is how you feel, imagine how all of this feels right now, feel it deeply, breathe it in – pretend it is your world even just for a minute. Can you feel a tear rolling down your face? How does it feel to know you’re redundant?”

And when she replies how horrible it feels and asks why you would so horribly try to make her feel such a thing, you may congratulate her on the momentary insight she received into the spiritual condition of the average man.

You do not reason with a woman, you hijack her emotional state, for it is only by experiencing the intensity of something on an emotional level can she even begin to identify with it. If she can associate such horrible feelings as representative of the average man’s inner plight, then maybe, just maybe she’ll realise being a woman isn’t all that bad after all. But I wouldn’t hold your breath. Rarely do the pampered become aware of their own petulance.

Hah, love the answer. Truth be told, it was more out of curiosity than me actually wanting to attempt such a feat. Sometimes the answer to a fruitless endeavor yields valuable insights, such as the case with your response.

Would you care to indulge my curiosity and divulge you’re age?
I only ask because I red an early work if yours on the red pill that I think dated from 2013 in wich if I recall correctly you stated you were young at university and had never married etc.

I find this astonishing as there is a depth to your work that made me think I was reading the thoughts of a much older and more experienced man.

You truly do have a gift of explaining quite complex concepts at a level that is easy to understand whilst being concise at the same time.

“This is why women lament how unfair it is their reputations suffer from promiscuity whilst man’s benefits, but are oblivious to the fact they enjoy a level of compassion and assumed innocence that is all but alien to men.”

What about ethnicity comparisons between genders? For example, imagine you are about to enter into your court hearing, because you have been indicted on some type of violent crime. Further imagine that you have no foresight as to who your jurors, judges, or prosecutors are going to be. In this situation, would you rather be a black female or a white male, in regards to which ethnicity or gender would stand the best chances of acquittal.

Basically, my question is do African or Hispanic women see the same compassion and assumed innocence as a white male?

Also, I’m sure attractiveness factors in to the equation of social privileges that women receive over men.

a note on feminism: u have to think of it in terms of farming. Once upon a time all members of society had real jobs, they were all responsible for the well being of their society. Then they, and everyone else i.e men, were technologically consumerized and the wares cheapened. so, unfortunately, feminism has become meaningless.

I’d just like to tell you that even if I disagree with some of your thoughts, you are a beautiful, thoughtful, comprehensive, writer and it saddens me that your caliber is not appreciated to the level that fools like Milo enjoy. You’re rigorous and consistent, and I appreciate it greatly.

Thank you for your kind, earnest words. However, I do not believe I’ve reached the apex of my ascension yet. Only time can show how far I’ll go. Take care, and once again, thank you for your kind comment.

Great post I have reading your work from the very beginning. I have collected all the recommend books, especially all Robert Greene books except 50th law.. What is your take on 50th law by Robert Greene and 50cent

OK thanks much.. Do you believe machevallism is opposite of stoicism or complimentary because when I read the prince I feel like it’s the exact opposite of what Marcus arilius is preaching in meditation(I have both books) and I don’t know who’s advice to take.. I would love to read a post from you on machevallism vs stoicism

So are double standards to be accepted even when damaging in certain situations? Because I have heard of stories in women in the workforce legitimately being treated more negatively compared to their male peers when taking a job dominated by men regardless of skill. Men don’t protect that which they don’t posses.

funny .. no answer. smh. You can always tell a woman hater. They complain about women then turn around and use the same complaint. “If she can associate such horrible feelings as representative of the average man’s inner plight, then maybe, just maybe she’ll realise being a woman isn’t all that bad after all.” If only women can see that THEY don’t have it the worst – MEN do! But it is men who wouldn’t trade places for anything